Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELECTRUCK ASIA v. EMMANUEL M. MERIS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 152616 2006-03-31	PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
This Court generally accords respect to the factual findings of the NLRC. However, the rule is equally settled that this Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC if the NLRC's findings of fact on which its conclusions are based are not supported by substantial evidence.[21] Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, is that level of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[22] Factual findings of administrative agencies will be set aside if found arbitrary.[23]
	GR NO. 143185 2006-02-20	NESTOR MENDIZABEL v. FERNANDO APAO CARPIO, J.
The decision[70] of the Office of the President affirming the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in DANR Case No. 2481, which petitioners offered in evidence, could hardly carry the day for them. Factual findings of administrative agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources ("DANR") are accorded not only respect but also even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence. However, deviation from this rule must be made when the administrative agency itself clearly misappreciated the facts.[71] In the present case, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the DANR. We have carefully reviewed the records and found that petitioners have not sufficiently proved that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. Wherefore, we hold that the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court even if contrary to those of the DANR, so long as such findings are supported by the records or based on substantial evidence.[72]
	GR NO. 139159 2006-01-31	PHILIPPINE MILITARY VETERANS SECURITY v. CA CARPIO, J.
We, however, modify the amount of separation pay. The payment of separation pay may be granted when reinstatement is no longer feasible.[21] Separation pay is equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service up to the finality of this Decision. Thus, the computation for the separation pay should be adjusted accordingly.